I agree - great video. I love the max/min widths and heights, as well as the positioning fixes (fixed and absolute). I was fighting with those until 2am just last night!

Brian: As far as I know IE7 does not support XHTML. I believe the reason behind it is that they didn't want to have add XHTML without a full XML parsing engine. They didn't have the time to do it right, and they didn't want to add a broken XHTML parser right
off the bat. I don't believe IE7 supports "application/xml+xhtml" yet, but I believe it still can "read" XHTML sent as text/html.

Server-side applications can check if the browser supports the xhtml content type in the http request and "upgrade" to xhtml if the browser supports it. It's not a perfect solution - All browsers send "*" to say they support all content types, which means the
workaround only works in browsers that send application/xml+xhtml along with the "*" content type.

One disappointment is the lack of Windows 2000 support. Not many developers are going to be able to use these new features when a large segment of the population won't be able to upgrade to IE7. It will take at least another year or two until Windows 2000 use
really starts to decline. At least half of the workstations in our office still use it.

I don't believe there are any technical reasons for it - it's a shame that web developers are effectively being held hostage to force people to move to XP

When you use Phishing Filter to check websites automatically or manually, the address of the website you are visiting will be sent to Microsoft, together with some standard information from your computer such as
IP address, browser type, and Phishing Filter version number.

---

Now, why does MS want my IP to see if a site is a phishing site or not?

Think about it for a second.

All HTTP based traffic includes the IP address. You can't browse to any website without disclosing your IP.

The requesting IP address is not used in the evaluation of the site.

Can we be confirmed that MS is NOT recording my IP?

Edit: More from the help file--Microsoft will not use the information it receives to personally identify you. For more information about what information is sent and how it is used, see the
Internet Explorer privacy statement.

OK. Good. Just that there's a lot of things to be paranoid about lately.

I agree - I don't believe Microsoft would use this tool for harm, on purpose. Just imagine the bad press!

My concern is US Law. Microsoft has *NO CHOICE* if the US Government decides to monitor the URLs of every IE user in the entire world. Microsoft is bound by US Law.

Am I the only one that finds the phishing feature incredibly scary? Here we have a feature that effectively sends almost every URL people browse to in the world to a single, centralized location.

The United States has something called the "Patriot Act" - Microsoft has already proven it is willing to send the search terms entered into MSN - how many milliseconds will it be after the IE launch until the NSA secretly demands to have, what is it now,
90% of every URL browsed to in the entire world?

This isn't science fiction or conspiracy theories - remember the Google subpoena going on right now?

This is sick Microsoft, shame on you. You go on and on about security, then blatantly aggregate (almost) every URL in the world into a single location??? LOL.

Phishing is a horrible thing, I agree with you there, and it would be nice to see something done. What you're effectively doing, however, is filtering websites based on your own set of critera. I don't think anyone here will doubt Microsoft on their critera
- but once you start filtering Internet content, where is it going to end?

Will Microsoft use the phishing filter to block democracy websites for Chineese visitors, if the Chineese government requires it? What about adult content with children? - that's a more noble cause than phishing/fraud if you ask me. Heck, you could just
go out and block all of those sick and obscene websites.

But if we're already going to do those things, why don't we block some of those anti-microsoft 'joke' websites that copy Microsoft's design - after all, they are confusing some visitors into thinking it's Microsoft's home page by using the same design.

I'm *VERY* over the top with my descriptions, but my point remains the same. Microsoft should the single entity deciding on what global Internet content will be blocked to approximately 90% of the world's Internet population, as noble as their original cause.

ShadowChaser: See my post. This is what MS has to do to fix this bootstrap uninstall nightmare that they have created. Instead they seem fixated on boostrappers as a way to solve the problem instead of fixing the originating problem that caused bootstrappers
to be necessary in the first place.

I do agree 100% about the bandaid comment though, but bootstrappers have been around for ages. Creating a bootstrapper *is* a good stop-gap solution, but I do think that eventually this problem needs to be solved.

I don't think it's the windows installer team's fault - it's more that they've been left out of the loop on decisions made by other teams - system file protection would be a good example. The other product teams (MSDE, Windows Security/Patching, etc) seem to
run into a small snag - some function or minor API windows installer is missing.

They then create large hacks and workarounds, causing serious problems for ISVs. If they had just worked together to add the functionality to windows installer in the first place, none of this would be an issue.

Updates is a big concern as well though - as big as the bootstrapper problem. Most "app updaters" run with the assumption that the user is logged in as an administrator - which is a very bad thing for security. As a developer *and* and IT guy, I find it extremely
frustrating how many applications completely ignore LUA best practices. Integrating low-trust user app updates into MSI seems like a great idea to me, and does fit nicely into the Vista feature set. I wouldn't get too upset about it:)

During the last couple of years it has taken a nose dive. There is not one keyboard that micrsoft currently makes that I would use or recommend to anyone. The last and best keyboard ever made by microsoft was the Natural Keyboard Pro (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,17102,00.asp).

Has anyone else noticed that nearly every programmer shown on Channel9 is using a Natural Keyboard Pro? (not an elite!)

The Natural Keyboard Pro

1) It is a full-size ergonimic keyboard.
2) The Insert,Delete,Home,End,PgUp,PgDn keys are in the correct place and are full-size! I can't stress enough how it irritating it is when this is wrong.
3) A built-in USB hub! This is the best! Easy to plug-in a mouse.

Call to Action

1) Re-release this keyboard (in black as well as white)
2) Update the USB to 2.0

Please give at least give us a good split keyboard without screwed up Ins,Del,Home,End,Pg keys!

Yes!!! The Natural Keyboard Pro was great, mine just packed it in a few days ago!

The new keyboards are nowhere near as good and they've completely gone after the dumb user market - The FLock key is a *complete* disaster!

If Tony really is watching this feedback, what I would love to see in Orcas is a document-based windows form designer.

The current form model is absolutely (pixel) positioned - with a few 'tricks' like the (fairly limited) new flow control panel.

I've needed time and time again a true "web-like" document container for WinForms apps - similar to Lotus Notes or InfoPath but built into the framework.
I want to be able to create a WinForm, drop a special 'design time document' control onto it and add some text, controls, formatting, etc into it. Or maybe Avalon already does this? If that's the case I'd sure love a design-time editor